First line of R217: "when interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence." Even if 20+ years of custom and precedents have us playing like X, if someone points out that due to a typo, the rules very clearly say "not X", then we discard the long custom. Custom only applies "When the text is silent, inconsistent or unclear."
Now you *could* argue that the text is "inconsistent" in first talking about "Without objection" and later talking about "with objection", but you have to actually make that argument and explaining detail why we'd ignore the direct text. And if you based it on custom, you'd not only be arguing against the text of the rule, you'd be arguing against the competing and deeper "custom" - that finding and allowing loopholes due to typos to work has long been valid and fundamental part of game play! On Fri, 4 Aug 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > The general precedent of game custom and behavior around this method. > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Aug 3, 2017, at 5:53 PM, Aris Merchant > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Which precedent, where? Also, Agoran precedent isn't really "a reason why > > things happen". It's more a way to decide among the competing rule > > interpretations, as people keep pointing out to me when the file motions to > > reconsider my CFJs. :) > > > > -Aris > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:30 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > I believe this clearly fails because of precedent. > > ---- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:57 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this, > > > although I am sure the rules will be construed by the already pending > > > CFJ to obviously not allow me to do this because it would be silly. > > > But I can't not *try* > > > > > > I intend in the next sentence to have every player win by apathy, > > > without objection. > > > > > > Every player wins by apathy. > > > > > > -- > > > From V.J Rada > > > >
